Is It Time For A Geocaching Rating System?

May 29, 2007

There's already a "Difficulty Rating", and there's already a "Terrain Rarting", so what does everybody think of possibly introducing a "Quality Rating"?

I continue to be amazed at the explosion of new Geocaches out there. Here in NS, Canada, I've seen the available Geocaches go from 1000 in December 2005 to over 3000 in May 2007. I personally think that it would be nice if there was some way for Geocachers to quickly see what other Cachers who have found the Geocache thought about it. Currently, the only way to do this would be to go through every log, and see what people are thinking.

The other goal of this, would be to help the Geocachers who place the cache to know how they are doing as far as their cache placements. If they see a particular Cache's "Quality Rating" is low, maybe they'll take that as a sign, and read through the logs and see what exactly could be done to help improve their cache. Hopefully this type of rating system could help improve the overall quality of all caches.

However, there would have to be some rules set around how the rating system would work. Some ways of protecting the integrity of the rating system would be implementing rules such as

- Only premium members can rate caches

This would eliminate the possibility of people signing up a tonne of fake Geocaching.com accounts, and then rating the cache really high, giving it a false high rating

- Only Geocachers whom have found over 200 Caches can rate a cache

This ensures that the ratings are coming from Cachers who have a bit of experience out in the field, and understand things that can make a good Geocache experience.

- Rating from 1 to 5 Stars

It seems to work for Terrain and Difficulty, so it seems to make sense it'd work for quality ratings.

- Allow quality ratings to be an allowed filter in Pocket Queries

People are busy, and maybe they want to find that "Great Cache" that is hidden amongst 100 "Ho-Hum" caches. Using a simple pocket query, they could specify they only want to see the caches that have a rating of above 3 stars (for example). This would be a great idea for Geocachers on Vacation, who wish to hit a few of the "Good" caches, rather 20 quick caches.

- Average Quality rating in a user's profile

This would be a small section of a user's profile, showing the average rating that they give to a cache. This would show if the cacher is rating all caches "1 star", or if the cacher is usually rating a cache a "4 star". It would show other cachers if this particular rater is being fair in their cache rating, or if they are being overly critical.

- Ensure the "Quality Rating" is optional

No one should be forced to rate the quality of the cache. But the option should be there if the cacher chooses to rate it

- Include the cache rating within a Cacher's log?

I'm on the fence about this one. Would you have the rating that the finder has applied to the cache included right in their log (similar to a review site)? Or would you hide this, and just show the 2 averages (the average on the cache, and the average in the Cacher's profile)?

***

Comments and thoughts are more than welcome

Tim (aka: The Geek of The Hurricane Geeks)

May 30, 2007

This has been discussed before.

Very difficult to get consensus on this topic. There are other, unaffiliated sites that offer ratings.

24.7k · May 30, 2007

There's already a "Difficulty Rating", and there's already a "Terrain Rarting", so what does everybody think of possibly introducing a "Quality Rating"?...

Quality can measure:

A: The scenery around the cache.

B: Cache materials and construction.

C: Cache contents.

D: Cache durability over time.

E: How closely the cache conforms to the described cache experience.

F: The fun factor of the cache.

There are no doubt other things quality can meaure.

4.2k · May 30, 2007

Honestly, this has been brought up too many times to count. I can't type another response (search is your friend), so I'll just say "no, it's a bad idea".

May 30, 2007

Honestly, this has been brought up too many times to count. I can't type another response (search is your friend), so I'll just say "no, it's a bad idea".

I like your abbreviated response. Here is mine:

Yes, its a good idea!

:blink:

2.5k · May 30, 2007

2.2k · May 30, 2007

YES

4k · May 30, 2007

I like the idea. Someone else has had the idea also.

Third one down.

May 30, 2007

I've never thought a rating system would increase my enjoyment of Geocaching. All the information I need to determine If I would enjoy finding any given Geocache can be found on the cache web page. I don't like micros or urban caches so I don't look for them. The logs give me a good enough indication that others liked it. I like more difficult terrain with a moderate to low difficulty. I don't need a rating system. There are too many variables and personal opinions in a rating system to make it useful.

May 30, 2007

I still think a tagging system would be much more helpful, as not everyone shares a common idea in what makes a cache "good" or "bad". It doesn't strike me as horrible in implementation, is easy to ignore and no single tag automatically damns a cache to being unlooked, as a one-star rating would for another.

2.3k · May 30, 2007

In theory, I don't object to a rating system.

In practice, I don't see it working since quality is very subjective.

The closest ideal I have seen proposed is the use of bookmarks to highlight extraordinary caches.

4k · May 30, 2007

I like the idea. Someone else has had the idea also.

Third one down.

Does anyone know of any other third party ratings systems that can be added to cache pages? When i looked in the past, this is the only one i could find.

May 30, 2007

I would like to see the cache owner rate the cache. You could rate 1 to 5 for scenery, history, coolness factor etc. Maybe it would be enough that the cache owner would have to explain why they chose that spot. It could be for scenery, history, coolness factor, easy to get to, hard to find, to increase find or hide count, nice place, tricky, easy to find, good for puzzle or code etc. I think this could go a long way to help figure out if the cache in question was one you wanted to do. If you found out that the cache owner's perception did not match yours you could ignore all their caches.

24.7k · May 30, 2007

I would like to see the cache owner rate the cache. You could rate 1 to 5 for scenery, history, coolness factor etc. Maybe it would be enough that the cache owner would have to explain why they chose that spot. It could be for scenery, history, coolness factor, easy to get to, hard to find, to increase find or hide count, nice place, tricky, easy to find, good for puzzle or code etc. I think this could go a long way to help figure out if the cache in question was one you wanted to do. If you found out that the cache owner's perception did not match yours you could ignore all their caches.

You just nailed the key problem with useful ratings. If I want a kick butt urban cache the variouse combinations of ratings that would show me one gets to be too cumbersome and complex to use.

You identified 11 different criteria to rate a cache on. A little brainstorming and I could double that. Then trying to get people to use that to rate a cahe...Gack.

That said two rating systems have potetnial.

One being worked on by this site. Merely a "I liked it" type system. Not too versitle but it would tend to bring the best of the best to the forfront. The other would be a "Netflix" type system that can compare what you like to what others liked, find similaraties and reccomend caches. I've got ecletic cache tastes, but so do others. That's why that system works. Both are simple.

May 30, 2007

You can already rate a cache by mentioning what you like or don't like about it in your visit log. That's what I do.

14.3k · May 30, 2007

They are working on a way to award caches that you like the best. So someday you will be able to look for caches that have the most awards. This will be great when you travel. This idea has no negative side-effects which is the main issue that has been brought up many times with a ratings system.

2.2k · May 30, 2007

They are working on a way to award caches that you like the best. So someday you will be able to look for caches that have the most awards. This will be great when you travel. This idea has no negative side-effects which is the main issue that has been brought up many times with a ratings system.

Then it's just a question of how awards will be given to caches.

18.9k · May 30, 2007

I am still fond of the system proposed by Markwell. Allow users to create a top 5% list. Make it easy to maintain and view these lists. Report how many cachers have included cache x in thier list. Simple. I like simple.

All approaches have some kind of "time" problem. Things change. Trees are cut and grow. Containers degrade. Trades go from good to bad. Carelessly replaced camo changes. Weather happens. What was once a 5 star whatever may well become a 2 over time. Would need a way to track the changes in rating over time. Either up or down.

1.1k · May 30, 2007

No.

To ambiguous.

Logscaler.

May 30, 2007

I've never joined in on the other discussions about ratings so I'll put my 2 cents worth in here.

In general I like the idea of a rating system but what you have presented is way to complicated. There are many factors which cause me to like/dislike a cache. The best I could do is to give a personal overall rating according to how I felt on that day and how the cache presented itself to me at the time I found it. For example, the time the search was made can make a world of difference to the pleasure of the hunt. Noon time might be near impossible to find some caches while searching for other caches noon may be the best time to search. Caches have a habit to migrating to different locations and types of hides. Even my own cache hides have changed since the area had changed around it. What would be a "4" rating today might be a "1" next week.

"- Only premium members can rate caches" - I don't agree. There are many "non-premium" members who have been here for years. Why leave them out? I don't agree with your argument about fake ratings. The logs of actual finds would weed out those.

"- Only Geocachers whom have found over 200 Caches can rate a cache" - I don't agree. Again, there are many cachers who have hunted caches for years but only log a certain type or don't log them at all. Why leave them out? This is a poor way of figuring out who has experience.

For now it seems that reading the previous logs is still the best way to determine what the cache might be like.

6.7k · May 30, 2007

Just spent 3 days driving 1300+ miles to GW5 and around the area caching - the best cache by far was GC563E, a virtual at the grave site of the submarine crews who manned the Hunley.

I suspect only a few of us would like it as much as I did, therefore your rating system would make it appear to be unworthy of attention when in fact it is worth the 400 mile drive from Raleigh to Charleston just to do that cache.

No, ratings will not work... plus I love the surprises found when I don't know what I seek.

4.7k · May 30, 2007

people have thought of it before, and we've gone around so much that the regulars know ahead of time who will respond and what they will say.

so i'll just check in and say no. i don't like it. i don't like it one bit.

May 30, 2007

Just spent 3 days driving 1300+ miles to GW5 and around the area caching - the best cache by far was GC563E, a virtual at the grave site of the submarine crews who manned the Hunley.

I suspect only a few of us would like it as much as I did, therefore your rating system would make it appear to be unworthy of attention when in fact it is worth the 400 mile drive from Raleigh to Charleston just to do that cache.

I know that in other forums, I was suggesting a more detailed approach to rating a cache. Sure, if it congeals into one over-all rating number, this cache might be rated lower than other. Inthe system I suggested, this cache may have a scenic rating that is lower, but its historic rating would be high. As you seem interested in the history aspect, this cache's history rating would meet your desires.

Edited May 30, 2007 by LivesWithMonkeys

20.7k · May 30, 2007

I've never thought a rating system would increase my enjoyment of Geocaching. All the information I need to determine If I would enjoy finding any given Geocache can be found on the cache web page. I don't like micros or urban caches so I don't look for them. The logs give me a good enough indication that others liked it. I like more difficult terrain with a moderate to low difficulty. I don't need a rating system. There are too many variables and personal opinions in a rating system to make it useful.

In theory, I don't object to a rating system.

In practice, I don't see it working since quality is very subjective.

The closest ideal I have seen proposed is the use of bookmarks to highlight extraordinary caches.

... If I want a kick butt urban cache the variouse combinations of ratings that would show me one gets to be too cumbersome and complex to use.

You identified 11 different criteria to rate a cache on. A little brainstorming and I could double that. Then trying to get people to use that to rate a cahe...Gack.

That said two rating systems have potetnial.

One being worked on by this site. Merely a "I liked it" type system. Not too versitle but it would tend to bring the best of the best to the forfront. The other would be a "Netflix" type system that can compare what you like to what others liked, find similaraties and reccomend caches. I've got ecletic cache tastes, but so do others. That's why that system works. Both are simple.

You can already rate a cache by mentioning what you like or don't like about it in your visit log. That's what I do.

people have thought of it before, and we've gone around so much that the regulars know ahead of time who will respond and what they will say.

so i'll just check in and say no. i don't like it. i don't like it one bit.

What they said.

(No thanks.)

8k · May 30, 2007

Rather than shoot down the idea - my question is what do you want the rating system to do?

A simple rating system of how much each cacher liked the cache and they displaying the average has little, if any, value. Different cachers like different things and someone's enjoyment of a cache depends on too many factors besides the cache itself.

An affinity system that recommends caches you might like based on the ratings you have given to other caches may help you avoid certain types of caches. However it depends on collecting a lot of input from cachers to be able to make inferences. And it may not be as useful when you are travelling because there won't be many cachers that have found the same caches you have found back in your home area.

A best-of-the-best or an award system - perhaps like Markwell's suggestion using the favorites bookmark list - will help find cache that lots of people recommend. This will probably eliminate a lot of difficult caches that don't get a lot of visits. If you are looking for quick and easy 1/1 caches you won't get a lot of these either because most peoples favorite turn out to be caches that take a little longer to do.

A system that asks for ratings on several attributes (e.g. How scenic is the area? Are there a lot of muggles? Does the cache take you to an interesting area? Is there humor involved in the cache? Is there a physical or mental challenge in retrieving the cache?) would be good if we could agree on the attributes. As some have pointed out, if there are too many attributes people won't bother with rating the cache. Picking the attributes that would be useful to the most people would be difficult. Right now premium members can start bookmark lists for each attribute they feel is important. These list can be made public so that they appear on the cache page. If more premium members made public bookmark lists based on useful attributes - instead of publicly sharing their FTF list - it would go a long way to providing other cachers with a guide to help with selecting caches to find.

5.9k · May 30, 2007

May 30, 2007

I love it!!! LMAO

1.6k · May 30, 2007

No.

I don't care what you think of a cache. If it ends up near me, I am going to find it.

May 30, 2007

How about this... they have it on the Waymarking site. Simply 1-5 for hated it to loved it.

If it can be done there, why not here? Sooner or later the "cream" is bound to rise to the top.

My god, did I really just suggest a Waymarking feature be adopted here and not the other way around?!

May 30, 2007

Every time log something about why I liked a cache it was for a different reason.

Sometimes the quality of the trail - features

The veiw might be great vista.

Something really neat is there - water fall - creek - animals - flowers - ruins - naked people - frogs.

I spent 1\2 hours once trying to photograph a Lizard. Got it! Made my day. Still got the picture. Where's yours!

If everybody who logs has very little to say - well that tells something.

If they complain - well consider what they said - I don't like PI - others don't mind at all.

May 30, 2007

On the subject of a rating system, I have a question:

I can understand when people might say that they won't use such a system (for whatever reason). That is their choice.

I can understand when people might say that such a system would not add any fun to their geocaching. I can understand that and assume that would mean they wouldnt use such a system. That too is their choice.

I can understand when people say they dont care what others think about a cache. This also equates to saying that they won't use such a system. Fine.

What I dont get is when people say "I dont like the idea of having such a system". To me this equates to " Not only would I choose to not use this system, but no one else should get the choice of using a rating system either."

A rating system would be just another feature that you can use or not use.

Some may choose to use bookmarks while I may not.

Some may choose to use pocket queries but I may not.

Some may choose to read through all the log entries while I may not.

I say, add the feature. For those that want to use it, that's great. For those that don't want to use it, thats great too. I dont see how granting someone the option of another feature hurts anyone.

The only people I see this hurting might be people who want others to visit their caches but know their caches would be rated poorly if a rating system was established.

Edited May 30, 2007 by LivesWithMonkeys

4.2k · May 30, 2007

I say, add the feature. For those that want to use it, that's great. For those that don't want to use it, thats great too. I dont see how granting someone the option of another feature hurts anyone.

(Good post by the way, I just edited the portion that I wanted to respond to)

Part of the issue is that that it takes resources to build features and thsoe of us that think this will not work don't want the resources spending time on this rather than something else. Not right or wrong, just pointing out the impact that putting in one feature has on others.

May 30, 2007

I say, add the feature. For those that want to use it, that's great. For those that don't want to use it, thats great too. I dont see how granting someone the option of another feature hurts anyone.

(Good post by the way, I just edited the portion that I wanted to respond to)

Part of the issue is that that it takes resources to build features and thsoe of us that think this will not work don't want the resources spending time on this rather than something else. Not right or wrong, just pointing out the impact that putting in one feature has on others.

Point taken.

I'm not sure which resources you are referring to, but for all the fun that geocaching provides, this web site is not all that complicated. And, really, all we are talking about is adding a few more fields to a database record and an addition to existing web pages to display the averaged results for each rating.

Considering Jeremy is/was a web designer, it shouldn't be too hard to make those additions.

Then again, with the vast monetary resources Groundspeak brings in, Im sure they can hire the job out too.

May 30, 2007

Different cachers like different things and someone's enjoyment of a cache depends on too many factors besides the cache itself.

There's a lot of people in this thread saying (more or less) what is quoted above. However, I believe, due to averaging, the concern of everyone's differing opinions would be negated. My whole concept of a "Quality Rating" system is to highlight the "Great caches", trying to give those caches a way of standing out amongst the hundreds of other caches around it.

I agree that some people may think a cache is a 3, when others may believe a cache is a 1 or a 1.5. For these types of "Average Caches", the system works, because the cache would fall around a 2 Quality rating. However, I think that most, if not all Geocachers can agree on what a "Great" geocache is. It doesn't matter if it's the scenery, the trickery in figuring out a puzzle, the difficult hike, the wildlife, the container, the difficulty in grabbing the cache among muggles, etc. When a Geocacher finds a Great or Superb Geocache, they know it. These types of caches would be consistantly rated between 4 and 5.

The thing that makes this type of system work properly is Averaging. I truely believe that most Geocachers know what they like, and what they don't like. Some of us REALLY hate some things that others really love. However, I think that there are caches out there, that there is definate concensus to the fact that it's a great cache. If people hate Micros, but they find a Micro at the edge of a beautiful waterfall, then these people are gonna rate the cache high (maybe a 4 instead of a 5).

If a cache averages a 1, then I think it's pretty obvious what kind of cache this is

If a cache averages a 2, then you might like the cache or you might not ... seems like it is "Ho-Hum"

If a cache averages a 3, then it's obvious that cachers felt it was a good cache, nothing particularly special

If a cache averages a 4, then it's a good cache ... something worth doing

If a cache averages a 5, Book some train/plane tickets and get your butt down to the cache

Averaging really should eliminate any of the fears that have been posted above in regards to some cachers liking, and some people not liking. If a rating ends up being an average rating, then it's probably an "average cache"

Comments?

Tim (aka: The Geek of The Hurricane Geeks)

2.2k · May 30, 2007

I think the cache description, the maps and the previous logs provide plenty of information about what I can expect from a particular cache. Very rare is the situation where I don't get what I expect. I don't think any ratings beyond Difficulty/Terrain are needed.

Caches I really enjoy already get the somewhat dubious honour of being added to my "Best Caches" bookmark list.

May 30, 2007

Very rare is the situation where I don't get what I expect.

Ew, I'm glad I don't end up like that. I am utterly and constantly surprised in Geocaching -- if not by the container, then the location, or just the variables outside of the hide itself.

I only expect certain things from caches I've already found...and even then, the water level next to a cache I thought I -knew- collapsed and you can now take a stroll on what used to be covered in two feet of water...

I only expect to be surprised.

May 30, 2007

Caching is subjective. Yes.

But let's not pretend that there are some caches that a lot of people dislike, and some caches that a lot of people love.

Even Geocaching would be subjective to the law of averages.

24.7k · May 31, 2007

...I say, add the feature. For those that want to use it, that's great. For those that don't want to use it, thats great too. I dont see how granting someone the option of another feature hurts anyone....

Very true.

24.7k · May 31, 2007

...But let's not pretend that there are some caches that a lot of people dislike, and some caches that a lot of people love.

Even Geocaching would be subjective to the law of averages.

True as well.

There are caches that rise or fall to the extremes for various reasons. Some caches have a universal appeal and some are the opposite. They are rare but they exist.

May 31, 2007

Averaging really should eliminate any of the fears that have been posted above in regards to some cachers liking, and some people not liking. If a rating ends up being an average rating, then it's probably an "average cache"

Comments?

Tim (aka: The Geek of The Hurricane Geeks)

I hide caches in remote areas. About 1/2 dozen of my caches are found about once or twice a year. If I have somebody go after a cache that takes a 17 mile hike up a mountain and rates it a 4 then a year later an out of shape city dude about kills himself, runs into rattle snakes, doesn't have fun at all, and rates the cache a 1 then I don't think averaging will give a true picture of that hide - even after a couple of years.

11.3k · May 31, 2007

I agree. I have some challenging caches that I had great fun getting to, but I can imagine others complaining the entire way up the hill, cursing me for putting a cache up there. <_<

20.7k · May 31, 2007

...What I dont get is when people say "I dont like the idea of having such a system". To me this equates to " Not only would I choose to not use this system, but no one else should get the choice of using a rating system either." ...

I think that if you reread this thread and the many, many others just like it, you would find that most people haven't posted that they 'don't like the idea of having such a system'. They routinely post their concerns that the proposed system will not work as planned and that having a poorly performing ratings system would be much worse than having no new ratings system at all.

Others counter that problems can be worked out on-the-fly. While this business model has worked nicely for Microsoft, I would rather not go with it. Plus, consider the drama that would ensue if it was determined that the system won't work and TPTB pull the plug on it. (Everytime I consider this possibility, I think about the 'temporary' tax cuts that were instituted a few years ago. They keep getting extended because no politician can stomach the ramifications of the 'tax increase' that would result from ending the cuts.)

20.7k · May 31, 2007

Then again, with the vast monetary resources Groundspeak brings in, Im sure they can hire the job out too.

Perhaps you know something that the rest of the class doesn't. Perhaps not.

May 31, 2007

I myself would love to know if my caches are bad.I am in the proccess of archiving some of my caches that I think are lame.It would be easier if other cachers that had logged them told me how bad or good they were.I am archiving the ones that I myself feel others really wouldnt enjoy the area as I do.

May 31, 2007

Then again, with the vast monetary resources Groundspeak brings in, Im sure they can hire the job out too.

Perhaps you know something that the rest of the class doesn't. Perhaps not.

I'm sure I have no direct knowledge of Groundspeak's balance sheets. All I have is conjecture:

The company has at least 3 employees and are looking for a 4th (ASP.web developer) I imagine they have at least 1 or 2 administrative assistants. I hear they have many volunteers that help with the registration and approval of caches.

For some reason, they choose to have a real office in Seattle. I guess just to have a place to run away to and get away from the wife and kids. All they really need is a place to store a rack of servers, router, firewall to house thier server farm. This could easily have been set up in the basement of their houses. Many places provide rack space in environmentally controlled secure space as well. Or you could just have the enitre web site hosted by someone else. Personally, I would rather be on the beach in Hawaii or out geocaching then in an office, but they want to look like they think businessmen should look like. Whatever. To each, their own.

Now, what do they bring in - about 40,000 users of the site. For the price, I imagine 90% of those pay to have the access to premium content for 30$/year. 40000 X 30 X.9 = 1.08 million dollars US per year, just from access to the web site. The you have merchandise sales, travel bug sales, etc. Lets say the total adds up to 1.5 million in revenue.

Pay each Admin Assistant $35k = $70K

Pay new Web Developer $100K = 100K

Office space/yr = 60k

WAN costs/yr = 25k

Hardware Maint/yr = 10K

Hardware&Software costs/yr = 20k

Total = 285K per year

This leaves 1.215 million to be split between the founders per year, a bit over 400k per year per founder. of course, all of this is beofre taxes, but that depends on how creative thier taxes are.

Not a bad piece of change for a game you didnt invent, upon which you tagged a name you didnt come up with. Bottom line is I think they have the resources to spare.

Edited May 31, 2007 by LivesWithMonkeys

20.7k · May 31, 2007

I think that you are underestimating the costs (and paid staff) involved in running the company and greatly overestimating the percentage of PMs.

Edited May 31, 2007 by sbell111

May 31, 2007

No need to worry about all the aspects going towards the rating, I think we could all easily sum up most caches with 0 to 5 stars, compared to other caches.

That Am I Hot Or Not? website seems to work well after enough people have voted, and last time I looked, I broadly agreed with most ratings.

I hide caches in remote areas. About 1/2 dozen of my caches are found about once or twice a year. If I have somebody go after a cache that takes a 17 mile hike up a mountain and rates it a 4 then a year later an out of shape city dude about kills himself, runs into rattle snakes, doesn't have fun at all, and rates the cache a 1 then I don't think averaging will give a true picture of that hide - even after a couple of years.

If every Found It! log entry showed that cacher's rating, you'd also be able to see from their log why they rated it as they did. It would be quite obvious that a 3-star rating with "from 2 ratings" next to it might need a little extra reading, and with so few log entries to look at, it would be obvious what's going on. The rating system would (very obviously) only work after a reasonable number of log entries.

If a cache has been logged a few dozen times, and has an average 4-star rating and "from 28 ratings", and you glance down the page and see a whole load of 4-stars then you could be fairly sure it was deserved. You could easily home in on a single star log entry and read why they hated it.

It's just extra info. It would be useful far more than it would ever not be. It really can't hurt!

It would, however, raise the possibility of an offended cache owner deleting the log entry and rating?

8k · May 31, 2007

Averaging really should eliminate any of the fears that have been posted above in regards to some cachers liking, and some people not liking. If a rating ends up being an average rating, then it's probably an "average cache"

Comments?

Tim (aka: The Geek of The Hurricane Geeks)

I hide caches in remote areas. About 1/2 dozen of my caches are found about once or twice a year. If I have somebody go after a cache that takes a 17 mile hike up a mountain and rates it a 4 then a year later an out of shape city dude about kills himself, runs into rattle snakes, doesn't have fun at all, and rates the cache a 1 then I don't think averaging will give a true picture of that hide - even after a couple of years.

I agree. I have some challenging caches that I had great fun getting to, but I can imagine others complaining the entire way up the hill, cursing me for putting a cache up there.

Many remote caches as well as puzzle caches would likely get a very high average rating since the people who do these caches tend to like these types of caches and those that don't already avoid them. Besides with very few visits I doubt if this "law of averages" is so meaningful since the there would be many caches with a very small sample. Particularly if rating a cache were optional. If you could rate caches that you didn't visit, hiking and puzzles may get low ratings since people who don't do these caches could simple give them a low rating.

In some areas the number of visits that most cache gets is small enough that the numbers could be affected by a group of cachers who agree to rank each other's caches higher. This is likely to happen anyhow where people will just give a higher rating to a cache place by someone they know as opposed to someone they've never met. A cacher could even create sock puppet accounts to rate their own caches. Of course this is dishonest, but there is no way to prevent this.

I just don't like a straight rating on how much you enjoyed a cache and displaying an average. It does me no good since I don't consider myself average. But aside from that it is open to cheating and it won't work for every cache.

If you are looking for a system that recommends "good" caches there are better alternatives.

One would allow finder to rate caches 1-5 but not to give an average rating displayed on the cache page. Instead all of a cacher's ratings would be compared with the ratings given by other cachers on the same caches. Using the ratings of cachers that have a high correlation to your ratings, the system could recommend other caches you might like. There is no incentive to cheat, your rating of a particular cache can't be seen by a cache owner or anyone else so you're more likely to rate your friends caches fairly, and if you are not average the system could still work for you.

The above system would not work well when caching outside your home area or if you are just starting out caching, so to recommend caches here there could be a system to reward caches that are really outstanding. The method proposed by Markwell would use the bookmarlist feature. Premium members would select one of their bookmark list to list recommended caches. The list would be limited to some percentage of their total finds. The system would then count how many recommended lists a cache is on when a certain threshold is met, the cache would be flagged a recommended cache. Of course this still has the potential for friends recommending each others caches but it would not be hard to implement.

I myself would love to know if my caches are bad.I am in the proccess of archiving some of my caches that I think are lame.It would be easier if other cachers that had logged them told me how bad or good they were.I am archiving the ones that I myself feel others really wouldnt enjoy the area as I do.

The best thing is to base this on what you think are lame caches or good cache. If you place caches based on averages you are leaving out cachers who fall at either end of the scale. Instead of variety of caches we would only have ones that average cachers like. If the geocaching population has a long tail you would be denying the majority of people the caches they prefer to find. Edited May 31, 2007 by tozainamboku

May 31, 2007

If every Found It! log entry showed that cacher's rating, you'd also be able to see from their log why they rated it as they did. It would be quite obvious that a 3-star rating with "from 2 ratings" next to it might need a little extra reading, and with so few log entries to look at, it would be obvious what's going on. The rating system would (very obviously) only work after a reasonable number of log entries.

If a cache has been logged a few dozen times, and has an average 4-star rating and "from 28 ratings", and you glance down the page and see a whole load of 4-stars then you could be fairly sure it was deserved. You could easily home in on a single star log entry and read why they hated it.

It's just extra info. It would be useful far more than it would ever not be. It really can't hurt!

It would, however, raise the possibility of an offended cache owner deleting the log entry and rating?

Interesting and true, but then I flashed to the thread about reading cache pages. It seems a lot of people don't want to make an effort to find out about the cache by reading the page. I would assume that they wouldn't reasearch the rating either (but still reserve the right to complain).

Your last line brings up a point. If some "idiot" rated my cache poorly, would deleting the log remove the rating. If not, then does it have a poor rating with no log entries to explain why?

1.7k · May 31, 2007

I agree. I have some challenging caches that I had great fun getting to, but I can imagine others complaining the entire way up the hill, cursing me for putting a cache up there.

Geee, could that be Elevation 3000?? GC12KEP. I enjoyed the hike because of the difficulty and the view at the end!!

On the subject at hand, I think it would be too hard to come up with a rating system that would please the majority of cachers.

Is It Time For A Geocaching Rating System?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment